Jump to content


Photo

Double/Multiple Chasing Rule Poll


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
74 replies to this topic

Poll: Double/Multiple (D/M) Chasing Rule Questions (19 member(s) have cast votes)

What level of punishment would you like to see for a player who commits a recognized double/multiple (d/m) chase in a game?

  1. 1) A uniform 25 point deduction (one-week ban QA) for every double/multiple chase game. (1 votes [5.26%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 5.26%

  2. 2) A uniform 50 point deduction (one-week ban QA) for every double/multiple chase game. (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  3. 3) A uniform 50 point deduction plus a one-week ban (two-week ban QA) for every double/multiple chase game. (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  4. 4) A penalty schedule: 25 points (one-week ban QA), 50 points (two-week ban QA), 100 points (one-month ban QA), ELO to 100 (three month ban.QA), permanent ban (9 votes [47.37%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 47.37%

  5. 5) A penalty schedule: one-week ban, two-week ban, one-month ban, three-month ban, permanent ban (2 votes [10.53%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 10.53%

  6. 6) Both 4) and 5). A points deduction plus a ban. (2 votes [10.53%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 10.53%

  7. 7) Some other points deduction/banning penalty (please comment below in the topic) (3 votes [15.79%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 15.79%

  8. 8) Nothing. Do not punish double/multiple chasing at all. (2 votes [10.53%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 10.53%

Should a Warning Only step be added to every penalty plan above for FIRST-TIME d/m chasing offenders?

  1. 1) Yes (6 votes [31.58%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 31.58%

  2. 2) Yes, unless the MT judges their double/multiple chasing prevented their loss (5 votes [26.32%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 26.32%

  3. 3) Yes, unless 2) above applies, or the offender double/multiple chases for more than 7 straight minutes OR makes a TOTAL of 40 d/m chasing moves in the game, of at least ten moves each time (2 votes [10.53%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 10.53%

  4. 4) Yes, but for some other parameters (please comment below in the topic) (2 votes [10.53%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 10.53%

  5. 5) No, no extra first-time warning is needed (4 votes [21.05%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 21.05%

Should the MT adjust ELO to penalize the double/multiple chaser with loss points and award the victim with victory points?

  1. 1) Yes, for all games where a recognized claim of double/multiple chasing occurs, and the victim quits the game. (7 votes [36.84%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 36.84%

  2. 2) Yes, but only if the MT can clearly judge their double/multiple chasing prevented their loss, and the victim quits the game. (5 votes [26.32%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 26.32%

  3. 3) Yes, but only for 2) above, or if the offender double/multiple chases for at least 7 straight minutes OR makes a TOTAL of 40 d/m chasing moves in the game, of at least ten moves each time, and the victim quits the game. (3 votes [15.79%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 15.79%

  4. 4) Yes, but for some other criteria not listed here (please describe in topic below) (1 votes [5.26%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 5.26%

  5. 5) No, the MT should never award a win for this (3 votes [15.79%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 15.79%

Vote

#1 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,885 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 09 March 2017 - 03:17 PM

Double/Multiple Chasing Poll

This poll is being issued to ask a few questions to help decide certain things regarding the penalties that should be applied for a recognized offense of double/multiple chasing described below. Under Article 9 of the GS&FR the MT is considering a limited time trial to help decide whether to take on the issue of double/multiple chasing permanently. Under such a test we would be temporarily suspending Article 8.4 of the GS&FR.

We will await community input as to punishments desired for this offense before proceeding with the trial. This poll will remain up for no longer than one month.

Due to the limitations we have on this site from a lack of programming, we cannot perfectly align with the ISF in their rules at Article 11's "More Squares Rule", though maybe we can step that way. The following plan is not aimed at minor offenses of d/m chasing but the more egregious ones.

The general outline for the MT plan during the trial/test period will be:

A recognized double/multiple (d/m) chase will happen at the following thresholds:

1) after a player d/m chases for ONE TIME in the game for 5 straight minutes or 25 uninterrupted chasing moves
2) after a player d/m chases for a SECOND TIME in the game for at least 3 straight minutes or 15 uninterrupted chasing moves each time
3) after a player d/m chases for a THIRD TIME in the game for at least 2 straight minutes or 10 uninterrupted chasing moves each time



NOTES:

a-) No double/multiple chasing event less than 2 straight minutes or 10 uninterrupted chasing moves will be recognized as d/m chasing under this plan.

b-) The above recognition of double/multiple chasing will require the victim to offer, one time per the game during an event of d/m chasing, a simple but fair warning to the offender in BattleChat that he is breaking the rules.

c-) The evidence required for making a claim of double/multiple chasing will be video proof in all but the clearest of endgame scenarios.

d-) On the punishment question above (first question in poll) keep in mind that providing video proof means a certain amount of work more for the victim than draw refusal or abuse.

e-) For anyone who is unclear about what is being talked about, double/multiple chasing is defined as one piece threatening two or more pieces of the opponent; or two or more pieces threatening one or more pieces of the opponent; in an alternating fashion so as to endlessly circumvent the two squares rule. More simply put, the most common example is when two pieces of one player alternate in threatening two pieces of the opponent.

f-) An important point to state is that, like the ISF, our threatening rule (and hence our chasing rules) all require adjacency. This means that a piece which is following/shadowing another from across a pond, for example, cannot be considered either threatening, or double/multiple chasing under this enforcement.

g-) Also, double/multiple chasing should not be confused with counter chasing, which is considered a legitimate response to a threat, both here and with the ISF. Although counter chasing may also be endless, like double/multiple chasing, the key difference is that counter chasing involves BOTH players chasing the other, and either one may quit. In comparison, the main feature of double/multiple chasing is that it is entirely done by ONE player. Only he is chasing and only he can quit without sacrificing a piece.

g-) Polls are difficult to make all-encompassing and to cover every desired aspect of a topic. If you have any thoughts that you feel are not represented by the poll questions and/or answers, and should be considered, please feel free to offer your comments in the topic below. We will definitely take all helpful ideas under advisement.

Thank you,

The MT

(GaryLShelton, tobermoryx, Major Nelson, and MTinsley)

Double/Multiple Chasing Poll

Edited by GaryLShelton, 27 April 2018 - 04:29 AM.

  • Losermaker, Major Nelson and Fks like this

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#2 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,885 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 01 May 2018 - 12:06 AM

Guys, here is our poll on double/multiple chasing. We invite all comments in the topic below prior to our test trial.
  • Fks likes this

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#3 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • Other Tournaments Manager
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 565 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 01 May 2018 - 12:12 AM

Posted 07 February 2018 - 09:31 PM

First, it is important to define why the double chasing rule exists and to do that we must look at single chasing. The motivation for preventing endless single chasing is obvious. A player should not be able to force his or her opponent to surrender a piece or take a draw. If this rule did not exist, then one could continuously challenge a high-ranking piece when losing. There is no strategy in this and it punishes successful play. Building upon this rationale, outlawing double chasing makes sense. Player A should not be able to force Player B to surrender a piece or take a draw by repeating the same moves endlessly. This is particularly pertinent early in games, when in order to accrue an advantage, a lesser player could repeatedly force a superior opponent to surrender pieces to avoid a draw. Therefore, double chasing is something that should be disallowed. However, in a scenario where Player A has two lieutenants and Player B has two non-trapped miners, the double chasing rule appears arbitrary and unfair to Player A out of context. Player A is double chasing to prevent his flag from being captured and not to force Player B to surrender a piece.



How should these situations be dealt with?



In situation 1, Player A is chasing in a non-end game situation with many pieces on the board. I feel that it is fairly obvious that this is unsporting behavior. However, in Player A's defense, the site stops endless single chasing but does nothing about double chasing. Therefore, while lame, he has a valid defense in that double chasing is not a built in site feature; unlike draws, which make draw refusal clearly wrong. Therefore, in situation 1, I would propose treating the match as "no contest." Player B with sufficient evidence can report the game to the MT and have all his points restored, while Player A has all points from the win removed with no further sanction.



In situation 2 (two captains vs two non-trapped miners), Player B has a CLEAR path to victory if Player A does not double chase. No extrapolation is required. Player B should be awarded the win and have 25 points added to his or her account and Player B is given a loss and has 25 points removed with no further sanction.



Situation 3 is where it gets complicated. In my game against Mazuzam, I had 3 miners, 1 lieutenant and a marshal. He had a marshal, general, 1 major and 1 sergeant. My flagged was sealed and my marshal was not trapped, with reasonable play, I had a 0 percent change of losing. However, by no means did I have a clear win; I put my chances at roughly 75 percent if he does not double chase. What made me angry in that game was that he acknowledged that he knew he should not be double chasing. However, if he did not do that, how should that game be judged? I did not have a guaranteed victory and there is a good chance that he did not realize he was playing unfairly, should he be given an automatic loss? What if I only had two miners and a much lower chance of winning, should I still be given a win because I was not given a chance to progress the game (even though my chances are slim) and could not have lost? Not to be arrogant, but I am better than the average player on here. What if I was a silver player, I am probably not winning the game in that case. However, it is not fair to give me the win but not a 400-point player in the same situation. I do not know how you reasonably judge this situation.



This bring me to my conclusion. The MT cannot establish a fair way to universally deal with double chasing because it is not obviously wrong. Therefore, the change needs to be made on the software end. In the meantime, the MT should apply my rules for situations 1 and 2 and consider double chasing as a factor when evaluating draw refusal and abusive behavior.
69 bottles of beer on the wall, 69 bottles of beer.
Take one down and pass it around.

#4 roeczak

roeczak

    Captain

  • Tournament Manager
  • 800 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Captain

Posted 01 May 2018 - 12:31 AM

I had voted but deleted it because I realised astros has a good point here. 
However, I still view double chase as forbidden and wrong in any situation and I think it should lead to a loss for the player making it (it cannot be used to enforce a draw/ call draw refual policy  

So I would give victory to the chased (except when he has 0 percent winning change, then he should be given a draw), fist offence should always be a warning (message explaining that double chasing is wrong and linking to an explain thread) and then you can follow the point penalty system you describe in option A4.

I voted again. 

However, REAL change needs to be made FINALLY. The poinnt of MT is not to ask for 13 points, is to finally relieve from the players, the admins and the mods themselves the burden of all those cases.

Programming Changes Now !

 


If you enjoy stratego you might want to subscribe to Roeczak. Member of Stratego Captains Club. Actively trying to promote the game and would like to help in any activity towards that goal. Highest Rating : 898 (Platinum Marshal)

#5 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,885 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 01 May 2018 - 12:36 AM

astros, thanks for your thorough analysis of the situation. Your in-depth thinking about it shows that this is not a simple subject.
The choices that you describe are all a part of the poll, I believe, so hopefully everyone will profit by your quality thoughts on the matter.

Your point about difference situations in the game is very instructional and should be considered.

I do need to say one thing. The ISF rules block on Repeated Board Position (RBP) and this is done regardless of whether a flag is being defended or not.

The ISF rules do not award a victory or loss in the matter of double chasing, their rules merely stop a movement. Here where we have no programming on the matter, and the MT cannot intervene in or even watch games live, we are forced to discover a method of approaching the problem of double chasing that is a bit different. We have to have something that works in hindsight which is how we rule on everything else.

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#6 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,885 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 01 May 2018 - 12:47 AM

It should be kept in mind that to some degree the endgame is a matter of luck. A person ending up with two lieutenants guarding an open flag against two miners may very well not lose. It completely depends on who has the two squares advantage, and that just probably can't be planned for by even the best of the best.

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#7 roeczak

roeczak

    Captain

  • Tournament Manager
  • 800 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Captain

Posted 01 May 2018 - 12:48 AM

Gary, what's your opinion on what i said?


If you enjoy stratego you might want to subscribe to Roeczak. Member of Stratego Captains Club. Actively trying to promote the game and would like to help in any activity towards that goal. Highest Rating : 898 (Platinum Marshal)

#8 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • Other Tournaments Manager
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 565 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 01 May 2018 - 01:43 AM

I do need to say one thing. The ISF rules block on Repeated Board Position (RBP) and this is done regardless of whether a flag is being defended or not.


I know, but a new player cannot be reasonably expected to know this.
69 bottles of beer on the wall, 69 bottles of beer.
Take one down and pass it around.

#9 scottrussia

scottrussia

    Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 785 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Scout

Posted 01 May 2018 - 02:15 AM

g-) Also, double/multiple chasing should not be confused with counter chasing, which is considered a legitimate response to a threat, both here and with the ISF. Although counter chasing may also be endless, like double/multiple chasing, the key difference is that counter chasing involves BOTH players chasing the other, and either one may quit. In comparison, the main feature of double/multiple chasing is that it is entirely done by ONE player. Only he is chasing and only he can quit without sacrificing a piece.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

And this is the real problem.  When one player creates the advantage using the two square rule - and the other then endlessly counters and does not have the advantage of the two square rule (ie one player has a piece trapped and the other doesn't) - the same rules should apply as double chasing.  And the player that CREATED AN ADVANTAGE, should be rewarded.


​Spartan Warriors

KING of the Battlefield!!!!!!


#10 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,885 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 01 May 2018 - 02:40 AM

g-) Also, double/multiple chasing should not be confused with counter chasing, which is considered a legitimate response to a threat, both here and with the ISF. Although counter chasing may also be endless, like double/multiple chasing, the key difference is that counter chasing involves BOTH players chasing the other, and either one may quit. In comparison, the main feature of double/multiple chasing is that it is entirely done by ONE player. Only he is chasing and only he can quit without sacrificing a piece.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

And this is the real problem.  When one player creates the advantage using the two square rule - and the other then endlessly counters and does not have the advantage of the two square rule (ie one player has a piece trapped and the other doesn't) - the same rules should apply as double chasing.  And the player that CREATED AN ADVANTAGE, should be rewarded.

 

 

This is an old proposition by The Prof and myself a few years ago to the ISF.  I personally disagreed with this part of our proposal but The Prof and others were very desirous of it.  A lot of good ideas came out of the Proposal we made to the ISF but none of it was accepted unfortunately.  A new blocking methodology that we called SMT for Square Moved To was the crown jewel of the improvements we submitted but it never caught hold.  At least not yet. 

 

With the trapping thing, basically, if you believe a person who has used the two squares rule to physically trap his opponent should be rewarded for that over and above all else, then you agree with The Prof, KARAISKAKIS, and others.  But my position was, and is, that if a person has "trapped" a person with the two squares rule and the person can counter chase elsewhere on the board, then the person doing the trapping has not done a CLEAN trap and should not be rewarded.  Only a person who can trap cleanly and without allowing his opponent to counter that move on another part of the board should be rewarded in my opinion.  This is the view of the ISF, I might add, and they were pretty adamant against changing this rule.  



The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#11 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,885 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 01 May 2018 - 02:55 AM

I know, but a new player cannot be reasonably expected to know this.

 

 

What a person can reasonably be expected to know?  A person cannot reasonably be expected to know a lot of things at first.  But he learns through rule enforcement.  That "55" on the highway?  If you're not on I-55, it probably means the speed limit, and the flashing cherries won't care if you know that or not.  :)  The Two Squares Rule is an example in the game.  Who can understand that at first?  Few do until they experience the blocking of their piece for the umpteenth time.  Then maybe they catch on.  Does the computer does show any pity for the poor soul who allows his piece to get Two Squares trapped when he doesn't know any better?  Hardly.  He will simply lose his piece. It's a black and white deal.  And we all accept that as part of the game.  So why not accept rules for double chasing that may, in certain circumstances, prevent a person from defending his flag?

 

I personally dislike exceptions to rules and so do not want to see any "flag exception" made in a double chasing rule.  My main reason is that this is also the way the ISF views it.  Whether any new players knows it or not.

 

I suspect that Europeans who have played a lot of live tournaments might feel a bit differently as to what is "reasonable" for a new player to be expected to know, or that the enforcement of the rule on double chasing should cause any remorse or sympathy for the poor new player. 


  • Fks likes this

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#12 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,885 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 01 May 2018 - 03:21 AM

Gary, what's your opinion on what i said?

 

 

roeczak, if you mean the chop at the end where you ask for Programming Changes Now, then yes I agree.  But, we have had a gob of conversations on the subject of programming improvements over the years and they have all, to a letter, fallen on deaf ears of the powers-that-be.  Can such a movement to demand this succeed?  I don't know.  It should be possible. I'd like to believe it's possible.  I'm always an optimist in the faintest corners of my soul, but the ownership hasn't done much to shed light on those dark places where my and others' optimism has been forced to flee.  Still, I keep thinking of the movie A Bug's Life.  If we ants would come out in big enough numbers, maybe the grasshoppers would listen.  Ah, but who knows?  I do feel the Dutch on the site have the best chance of kickstarting this change.  If Nortrom and Morx would focus their combined energies on cracking the Jumbo nut, and they eventually succeed, they'd have my sincerest applause.  And I think everybody else's too. 

 

The moniker of KingJur says a lot about what we're up against, I think.  But perhaps I'm being unfair there.  Once upon a time I actually had his ear for about three back and forth sentences.  He had asked me what the biggest problem on the site was.  Thinking off the cuff I mentioned the double chasing issue (back in 2015, mind you).  He had me enthused for his attention but disappeared after a couple of back and forths, so it was a bit of a letdown.  Still, he has made  two posts in the forum.  One being in a thread I began three years ago.  Here:  http://forum.strateg...app/#entry40908  So he does exist.  And probably has an email address, a phone number, a voice mail box, a Facebook account, etc., etc., etc. Who knows, we might even get his attention by pm-ing him!  Incredibly, I don't know if that's ever been tried.

 

 

If you mean the poll choices, well they give a pretty wide range of options from bleeding heart liberal to crushingly mean conservative.  The bias I have is always toward the latter of those two (the crushingly mean conservative approach  :D  ) but the poll will tell if I have fellow hardcore members in any numbers.  



The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#13 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • Other Tournaments Manager
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 565 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 01 May 2018 - 03:40 AM

What a person can reasonably be expected to know?  A person cannot reasonably be expected to know a lot of things at first.  But he learns through rule enforcement.  That "55" on the highway?  If you're not on I-55, it probably means the speed limit, and the flashing cherries won't care if you know that or not.  :)  The Two Squares Rule is an example in the game.  Who can understand that at first?  Few do until they experience the blocking of their piece for the umpteenth time.  Then maybe they catch on.  Does the computer does show any pity for the poor soul who allows his piece to get Two Squares trapped when he doesn't know any better?  Hardly.  He will simply lose his piece. It's a black and white deal.  And we all accept that as part of the game.  So why not accept rules for double chasing that may, in certain circumstances, prevent a person from defending his flag?

 

I personally dislike exceptions to rules and so do not want to see any "flag exception" made in a double chasing rule.  My main reason is that this is also the way the ISF views it.  Whether any new players knows it or not.

 

I suspect that Europeans who have played a lot of live tournaments might feel a bit differently as to what is "reasonable" for a new player to be expected to know, or that the enforcement of the rule on double chasing should cause any remorse or sympathy for the poor new player. 

The 55 on the highway is a suggestion that you should go at least 70.

 

As a European who has played in live tournaments, I can say, no, it is not reasonable for a new player to understand the double chasing rules. It is not written on the game box nor does it appear anywhere on this website. In fact, it only exists because a few players who take Stratego seriously enough to hold live tournaments decided it was fair. Now, I agree with the logic behind the rule, but expecting anyone who is new to the game to be knowledgeable of it is ridiculous.


69 bottles of beer on the wall, 69 bottles of beer.
Take one down and pass it around.

#14 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,885 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 01 May 2018 - 04:05 AM

The 55 on the highway is a suggestion that you should go at least 70. 

 

  :)  So true...

 

 

 

 

 As a European who has played in live tournaments, I can say, no, it is not reasonable for a new player to understand the double chasing rules. It is not written on the game box nor does it appear anywhere on this website. In fact, it only exists because a few players who take Stratego seriously enough to hold live tournaments decided it was fair. Now, I agree with the logic behind the rule, but expecting anyone who is new to the game to be knowledgeable of it is ridiculous.

 

astros, I can't really argue with the fact that certain newbies, most perhaps even, might not know about the rule against double chasing.  But my point was not saying that they should be expected to know it but that it should not matter whether they do or not.  Few new players know the 2S Rule, as I said before, but this doesn't mean it's not enforced against them.  It is.  There will be those of a charitable mind and there will be those of the opposite on this issue, I'm sure. It'will be interesting to see where the opinions fall. 



The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#15 Thucydides_Olorou

Thucydides_Olorou

    Bomb

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 37 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Sergeant

Posted 01 May 2018 - 04:33 AM

It's very simple,just enforce the IFS rules.Nothing more,nothing less.


  • TemplateRex likes this

#16 scottrussia

scottrussia

    Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 785 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Scout

Posted 01 May 2018 - 05:21 AM

This is an old proposition by The Prof and myself a few years ago to the ISF.  I personally disagreed with this part of our proposal but The Prof and others were very desirous of it.  A lot of good ideas came out of the Proposal we made to the ISF but none of it was accepted unfortunately.  A new blocking methodology that we called SMT for Square Moved To was the crown jewel of the improvements we submitted but it never caught hold.  At least not yet. 

 

With the trapping thing, basically, if you believe a person who has used the two squares rule to physically trap his opponent should be rewarded for that over and above all else, then you agree with The Prof, KARAISKAKIS, and others.  But my position was, and is, that if a person has "trapped" a person with the two squares rule and the person can counter chase elsewhere on the board, then the person doing the trapping has not done a CLEAN trap and should not be rewarded.  Only a person who can trap cleanly and without allowing his opponent to counter that move on another part of the board should be rewarded in my opinion.  This is the view of the ISF, I might add, and they were pretty adamant against changing this rule.  

The problems with your argument are:

 

1. Your then saying that your forced out of the alleys if you have a lower piece unless you want to sacrifice it in the future if you trap a piece.   What does this encourage?  Even more shuffling.  Why would I ever bring a piece into the alley if he was "forever trapped" .  It means I can never attack without sacrificing the piece.  That is just plain wrong.  If you haven't used the three square rule and didn't trap my piece - tough.  You could have brought a 2nd piece - didn't do that - tough.  

 

2. The odds are already way too stacked for those that shuffle forever with the changed scouts can attack from a distance.  This just encourages even more shuffling by people WITH NO INTENTION OF TRYING TO CAPTURE THE FLAG.

 

3. It makes no sense from a common sense perspective.  ON a battlefield in a situation where there is a stalemate in one part of the battlefield should that situation stop an attack on another part of the battlefield away from the 1st situation?  I can think of one reason - the player being attacked takes their piece and moves to stop the attack and use the 3 square rule to kill the attacker - other than that - there is nothing that would stop the advance.

 

The ISF has made a huge mistake with the rule change on scouts.  Its given the advantage to people that have NO INTENTION OF TRYING TO CAPTURE THE FLAG.  Do you know what game doesn't involve trying to capture the flag?  Chess!  And I suggest we keep stratego stratego and let chess be chess.

 

Change the scout rule back!  And reward those that create the advantage in regards to chasing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


​Spartan Warriors

KING of the Battlefield!!!!!!


#17 TemplateRex

TemplateRex

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 290 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Miner

Posted 01 May 2018 - 06:58 AM

It's very simple,just enforce the IFS rules.Nothing more,nothing less.


This. +1. Anything else than full implementation of the ISF rules leads to endless threads and putting the burden on users to make screen shots etc. Only 100% automation will do.
  • Thucydides_Olorou likes this

#18 KissMyCookie

KissMyCookie

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 646 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Marshal

Posted 01 May 2018 - 07:23 AM

My feeling is that astros has published an excellent analysis of some basic potential scenarios, and his scenario 3 also provides a valuable insight to a more complicated matter; hence, my pattern of voting. I agree with astros 100%.

 

Furthermore, with many computer home systems (I know that phones may be more questionable regarding the following item) have the potential to record video. I would offer the "suggestion" to players to engage video immediately when a chase scenario has begun. I would not state that video is mandated, but it is one of the best resources for revealing more accurately the sequence of moves by both sides.



#19 TemplateRex

TemplateRex

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 290 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Miner

Posted 01 May 2018 - 08:36 AM

It should be kept in mind that to some degree the endgame is a matter of luck. A person ending up with two lieutenants guarding an open flag against two miners may very well not lose. It completely depends on who has the two squares advantage, and that just probably can't be planned for by even the best of the best.

 

Often it can be planned by the one who has the last scout. It's not always guaranteed, but if you wait with using your last scout until all other pieces have moved, you can usually make an extra scout move before exchanging it and get the 2 square rule in your favor. If the opponent has unmoved pieces left, you have to guess/gamble whether the unmoved piece is on an even or odd square.


  • GaryLShelton likes this

#20 TemplateRex

TemplateRex

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 290 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Miner

Posted 01 May 2018 - 08:38 AM

I know, but a new player cannot be reasonably expected to know this.

 

I disagree, anyone with a background in chess/draughts/go knows that repetitions are either forbidden or lead to a draw. That Stratego treats repetitions as special cases should not come as a surprise.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users